I knew this would happen. They'll simply pass any and all ordinances to prevent gun ownership, in order to get the desired effect. If this is struck down, then the next may be something like a city office that is required to do a background check (that is only open between 3-3:15 AM on Feb. 29) before you can have a gun license.

What do we do when our public officials display such disdain for the letter and spirit of the Constitution? This was not even a good faith attempt to craft an ordinance within the framework of the recent Supreme Court decision.

The difference being a direct on the point SCOTUS decision that invalidates your current law and of course the Constitution itself.

as for Immigration, I could make the same point, from a different perspective. DoJ sues Arizona for modeling it's law on the US Code, but doesn't sue or punish Sanctuary Cities for thwarting the Feds from enforcing that same law?

Which set of jurisdictions is ignoring Congressional intent and impeding the application of the Law?

The house I grew up living in Chicago had the garage underneath the two front bedrooms. The house itself was one unbroken rectangle. I wonder what this gun law says about that. Especially if the garage door is closed.

I heard on NPR during lunch that Rhode Island troopers already do what the Arizona law would do: report illegals to ICE who have been detained for traffic violations or accidents.

Almost every state has some amount of immigration law on the books. I'd venture to say that Arizona's is most closely aligned with the Feds (because they expected this outcome).

The other factoid ignored by the suit, but sure to come up in the case is thhe Congressional intent when they fund that Law enforcement training and immigration hotline that gets more than a thousand calls a day from local cops with people that they want to check or deport. Clearly Congress expects and desires local enforcement.

It is not about whether there are laws on the books; they are - both Federal and State.It is about whether the State authorities call ICE and say, "Hey, we've got some customers for you" when they find out that arrestees are illegal aliens, as they must find out in the course of routine interrogation.If you are arrested for whatever reason, the first thing the cops are going to ask is who are you and where are you from. That's always been so.

why is ok in Arizona to defy federal responibility and not ok in chicago?

Small words, AZ is NOT “defying” anything…they are enforcing Federal Law…and turning those caught over to the Federales. That’s not defiance, that’s enforcement…there is no new crime and no new punishment. But thank you for contributing.

and by the way, what is unreasonable about the chicago ordinance other than the slaves to the absoluteness of the 2nd amendment don't like it?

Well in First Amendment terms it places UNREASONABLE Time, Place, and Manner restriction on a CONSTITUTIONAL Right. Again thank you for contributing and allowing us to explore, together, various points of view.

HD - in the case of immigration the fed's have abdicated their duty to enforce the borders, so it falls upon the state to do it's best. In the case of the 2A, local governments do not have the right to abrogate your Constitutional rights. Don't tell me you're screaming for State's Rights? You'll be a loony racist KKK Nazi pig like Rand Paul.

nd by the way, what is unreasonable about the chicago ordinance other than the slaves to the absoluteness of the 2nd amendment don't like it?

Apparently, HD isn't getting his talking points from the Daily Kos any more.

What about the recent decision don't you like? That your side lost a squeaker or that there's a process that would, in any way, allow 2nd Amendment advocates to win? I'm betting the latter is what really sticks in your craw, if craw you do indeed possess in any amount.

The new ordinance doesn’t mess around: it bans gun shops in Chicago…So is there a First Amendment Right to Free Press, were we to ban the printing of newspapers or pamphlets in Chicago? You cannot render a Constitutional Right moot, by regulation. You can simultaneously acknowledge a right, but make it IMPOSSIBLE to exercise. As example, “Adult Entertainment” may be regulated by local ordinance, to include Planning and Zoning, HOWEVER, try to prevent the establishment or to close such an establishment via PnZ is to invite a Federal Law Suit.and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or in their garages, with a handgun.

Imagine not being able to exercise Free Speech in a similar circumstance, House and get back to me.It also requires anyone who wants to keep a handgun at home to obtain a Chicago firearm permit, take firearms trainingRendering a right moot via expensive regulation is, most likely, unconstitutional. I suppose you object to the Minnesota or is it Wisconsin legislator who hopes to “license” journalists? Or is a license acceptable for Dan Rather and Rachel Maddow, in order to exercise their First Amendment Right, they first must undergo training? and have no convictions for a violent crime, unlawful use of a firearm or two or more charges of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.Really? And tell me House, can one Speak if one has been convicted of a violent crime? Can one speak drunk or stoned?Each weapon must be registered, and owners can only register one weapon each month, according to the ordinance.

Partially acceptable…HOWEVER, can Dan Rather or Rachel Maddow only speak a certain number of times per month? Can you only Assemble for Petition of Redress once a month? If so, then you have no problem with restrictions on Code Pink or Mother Sheehan’s activities, right?

Joe said... "Small words, AZ is NOT “defying” anything…they are enforcing Federal Law…and turning those caught over to the Federales."

And that Joe is precisely the problem.

Are you asserting that a beat cop in Tucson has federal jurisdictional authority that what? stops at the borders or, as a true federal office enforcing federal law can shed his Arizona limited jurisdiction and pursue over a state line in his enforcement of Federal Law?

It always seems like gun advocates believe the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is more absolute than the 1st Amendment right of free speech. After all, we rarely see much of an uproar of the restrictions placed on speech, with the approval of conservative Supreme Court Justices, such as obscenity, time place and manner, imminent lawless action, incitement, "fighting words," etc.

Then of course, you have the "free speech zones" frequently used by President Bush. From the Presidential Advance Manual: "There are several ways the advance person can prepare a site to minimize demonstrators. First, as always, work with the Secret Service to and have them ask the local police department to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route. The formation of 'rally squads' is a common way to prepare for demonstrators... The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform... As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site."

Yet gun right advocates seem to think any restriction placed on gun possession, or any restriction on where they can carry their guns, is blatantly unconstitutional. I believe the outright bans from DC and Chicago were unconstitutional and thus rightly overturned. However, I also believe the new ordinances from Chicago, though perhaps overly harsh and in places irrational, are constitutional.

Are you asserting that a beat cop in Tucson has federal jurisdictional authority that what? stops at the borders or, as a true federal office enforcing federal law can shed his Arizona limited jurisdiction and pursue over a state line in his enforcement of Federal Law?

Simple concept, “Secondary Enforcement”….when stopped FOR ANOTHER OFFENSE, the officer may request identity papers, which by FEDERAL LAW, all legal immigrants must possess on their persons, and the officer may ask YOU to show your identification. Should there be a determination that the papers in question are false or that the person possessing them is ILLEGAL, they are turned over to the Federal Authorities.

Just like the Federals are TRAINING other local enforcement officials to do.

As to the rest of your screed, they AZ Millicent is NOT at the border nor is there any mention of crossing out of AZ to enforce AZ law….please stick to topics on point.

Wow, HD can I then bring up the FIRST version of the Establishment Clause, now too? It only failed because it mentioned NATIONAL Government, to which the critics objected, saying, there was no NATIONAL Government, merely a FEDERAL one.

I don't know much about the First Amendment then? What did I say that was wrong? All those restrictions are ones that infringe on the right of free speech at least as much, if not more, than all the restrictions that guns rights advocates decry as unconstitutional. (Certainly, there are a fair number of guns rights advocates who would protest these speech restrictions - the libertarian wing - but they are often drowned out by the social conservatives who see no problem with selective censorship [in their favor])

> It always seems like gun advocates believe the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is more absolute than the 1st Amendment right of free speech. After all, we rarely see much of an uproar of the restrictions placed on speech, with the approval of conservative Supreme Court Justices, such as obscenity, time place and manner, imminent lawless action, incitement, "fighting words," etc.

That’s so fallacious it is not funny. Its liberals who generally believe in horrifying restrictions of campaign related speech and expenditures necessary to engage in speech. It was liberals who screamed and cried that Hillary the movie should have been censored.

Our republic can and will survive restrictions on porn. But when the restrictions go to political speech, our very democracy is at stake. Liberals think that the first amendment is about protecting obscenity and not electioneering. They have it exactly backwards.

> Then of course, you have the "free speech zones" frequently used by President Bush.

And you have Obama keeping the press away from the oil spill. Which is worse?

> Yet gun right advocates seem to think any restriction placed on gun possession, or any restriction on where they can carry their guns, is blatantly unconstitutional.

I rarely hear people express that opinion. But saying no gun stores allowed in Chicago? That is blatantly unconstitutional.

And by the way, the right to bear arms is in fact more important than freedom of speech. The right to bear arms gives you the physical ability to resist tyranny. Freedom of speech only gives you the power to whine about it.

Mind you, I value freedom of speech. I have long said that the first and second amendments are rightly considered the amendments that protect our sacred right of revolution. Of course no government can legalize armed resistance to the same government, but the first and second amendment does the next best thing. Think about it. The first amendment protects your ability to tell everyone it is time to rebel, to print it out on leaflets, and to assemble a large group of people. and the 2nd amendment makes it possible for that peaceable assembly to become, well, unpeaceful. You might even wonder how the religion clauses fit into this, but its an open secret that tyrants would stifle dissent by accusing a person of heresy.

@HD:Would you please for God's sakes get to Rhode Island and tell them to stop arresting illegals and sending them over to ICE then? Isn't this another example of local law enforcement doing exactly what you're saying the AZ law does? Get over to DailyKos and get the ball rolling for a lawsuit against Rhode Island! They're making AZ's case!

I'd go over to dailyKos and do it, but somebody would ask if I voted for Bush, and then they'd just say I was a tea-bagging racist redneck.

Well James much of what you attribute to Conservative Courts” is standing law, obscenity, fighting words and the like….free speech areas pre-date Bush, and come from an earlier, MORE LIBERAL SCOTUS, which held that schools are single purpose entities, and that Free Speech may be ,limited, in a content neutral manner, so as to prevent the disruption of the educational mission….How’s that for starters?

I apologize to Prof. Althouse for holding forth on ConLaw, without a license.....

HDHouse said....If the authority regarding firearms rests with the feds as immigration does and the locals make a law or take an action, why is ok in Arizona to defy federal responibility and not ok in chicago?

One more time. The SCOTUS says Chicago is wrong. The SCOTUS and various Appeals Courts have taken positions consitent with Arizona. Apparently Arizona has passed various anti-legals laws in 2004, 2005 and 2007 and every one went to court over the same Federal Law preemption arguments and the ACLU lost each time. Other factiods from an NRO article below FWIW:

- In the landmark 1976 case of De Canas v. Bica, the Supreme Court upheld a California law that prohibited employers from knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens.

- As the Ninth Circuit, which covers Arizona, recognized in Gonzales v. City of Peoria (1983), “where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.”

- The Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals have all recognized the inherent authority of state and local officers to make immigration arrests.

- As the Tenth Circuit observed in the 1999 case of United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, federal law “evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.”

- And in 2005 a unanimous Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena recognized the authority of local police officers to inquire into the immigration status of individuals who have been lawfully detained.

- in Arizona Contractors Association v. Napolitano (2007), evaluating Arizona’s 2007 law that required all employers to use the E-Verify system to verify the work authorization of employees. According to the court, “the fact that the Act will result in additional inquiries to the federal government is consistent with federal law.”

That BTW is the same Napolitano that thinks this version is unconstitutional.

So what is the special difference between the First and Second Amendments that would allow the government to restrict speech based on obscenity or time, place, and manner, but not allow the government to require waiting periods/background checks for gun ownership or restrict where you can carry your guns? Is it only that we have had SC precedent that states those speech restrictions are allowable, but have no precedent speaking either way on the question of gun restrictions? (Heller and McDonald dealing with outright bans of the possession of guns do not answer these questions.) As many conservatives would say, Supreme Court precedent is not the Constitution.

(Certainly, there are a fair number of guns rights advocates who would protest these speech restrictions - the libertarian wing - but they are often drowned out by the social conservatives who see no problem with selective censorship [in their favor])

This gets true every passing second as the mostly Boomer social conservatives age and eventually shuffle of their mortal coil.

Actually I was a little wrong there, Heller and McDonald do speak to some of the restrictions, allowing "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" and "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

Of course this does not speak to all of the new Chicago ordinance. Some aspects of the ordinance, i.e. the banning of gun shops in the city as stated by other posters here, are stupid. But the fact that a restriction is stupid does not make it unconstitutional.

A.W. said... "> Then of course, you have the "free speech zones" frequently used by President Bush.

And you have Obama keeping the press away from the oil spill. Which is worse?"

A.W.....which is worse? I think lying about stuff is worse. Obama didn't keep the press away you ninny. BP did. Ohmygod the lengths some of you go to act foolish.

and AW, Bush came to Long Island and i went to see him (a good afternoon laugher) but I was turned away from a public place because I wouldn't sign a loyalty oath the republican party and refused to promise that I could only ask a question given out by his aides.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, HD, but before you start spouting useless hyperbole, as seems to be your wont, but weren't you the idiot that claimed the right were the ones that labeled the good general as "Betrayus"?

you should apologize for calling me a liar, but I ain’t holding my breath waiting for it.

> and AW, Bush came to Long Island and i went to see him (a good afternoon laugher) but I was turned away from a public place because I wouldn't sign a loyalty oath the republican party and refused to promise that I could only ask a question given out by his aides.

Mmm, yes, because Bush has no right of association or disassociation. *rolls eyes*

You still lied. If you care to listen to the tape there was a 65 foot rule approaching boats or booms. Try again but that is what the tape said.

2. These were public events held on public land with no restrictions other than swearing an oath to the republican party and being turned away on public land during a publically held forum by an elected official. "All Americans are invited to listen to the President EXCEPT for you and you and you and you..."

As for the event on public land, so the frick what? you are allowed to give the use of public land to a private person or organization for a while and filter out the undesirables. sorry, but you don't get to go to a bush rally unless you support bush. what the hell do you expect?

After all, we rarely see much of an uproar of the restrictions placed on speech, with the approval of conservative Supreme Court Justices, such as obscenity, time place and manner, imminent lawless action, incitement, "fighting words," etc.

Most speech oppression comes from the left these days. I can't think of any bans on free speech that have come from the right in many years other than the abomination of McCain-Feingold, to the extent McCain and the people who supported him were of the right (yeah, I know all about Bush, sadly). Even in that case, there was indeed an uproar against that measure, again mainly from the right.

And that's why you may not have seen "much of an uproar" on speech restrictions; the transmission belt of national uproar in the media, academia, and Hollywood is lopsidedly liberal. Most people in those groups see nothing wrong with banning speech that challenges the designated race, gender and sexual orientation cliques.

So there's been plenty of uproar about banning political speech and various speech-code regimes, but it doesn't track with the liberal narrative. FIRE isn't able to reprint its press releases in national media the way that advocates of liberal causes can.

You still lied. If you care to listen to the tape there was a 65 foot rule approaching boats or booms. Try again but that is what the tape said.

Anderson Cooper lied? AC is saying the government is giving reporters the run-around about being able to get access to these clean-up sites. This is being enforced by the Coast Guard. And AC says it's a class D felony like I originally said.

Unless you are prepared to say that BP runs the Coast Guard, and Health and Human Services, how can you possibly say that the government has nothing to do with this?

If you follow the links from current to the website with the CNN clip, down in the comments there is a clip of Soledad O'Brien who interviews that photographer who was detained in Texas City trying to take photographs of the BP refinery that exploded in 2005, for a background story.

Simply put, the government is doing what they wished they had done during Katrina. They don't want pictures of oily birds, marshes choked with oil, etc. getting on the airwaves. It's one thing to have long shots of oil booms and brown water; it's another to have close-up's of the damage.

So what? We have the NRA and other groups to uphold the 2nd Amendment banner. With McDonald in hand, a lot of these abusive ordinances will be struck down or cities and states will modify them to be less easily challenged.

I am by no means an absolutist on handguns (I think long guns should have fewer restrictions). I don't have a problem with restricting ownership by felons, and I think mandatory training is fine. I disagree on policy grounds with the policy of restricting legal guns in schools and other public places, but I think that such restrictions are unconstitutional. Of course, the devil is often in the details - authorities can make compliance with various requirements a simple process, or they can use seemingly benign regulations to frustrate all but the most dogged.

On Chicago's ban of gun stores - that seems stupid. The city is basically foregoing tax revenue in favor of the suburbs where the shops will operate.

Gun-nuttiness may only be a particular and potentially violent manifestation of psychosis, but I found this related finding interesting:

Although the following article may infuriate some and others may see it as a joke, it is no joke. Recent research suggests that there is a link between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president. It appears according to a study by Christopher Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut University, that there is a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush. Lohse’s study is based on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 election.

Lohse’s research is supported by SCSU professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola. There seems to be a strong correlation between psychotic persons and their presidential support for Bush. “Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” says Lohse. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how is going to be.’”

Originally this study was supposed to be an advocacy project designed to encourage mentally ill patients to vote. It was after the completion of the project that the Bush trend was noticed by Lohse. “Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,” the study says.

The study used two scales. The first was the Modified General Assessment Functioning (MGAF) scale. The instrument measures the functioning of disabled patients on a 100-point scale. The second scale developed by Rakfeldt assessed knowledge about current issues, politics and government.

According to Lohse, “this trend isn’t unique to Bush: A 1977 study by Frumkin & Ibrahim found that psychiatric patients preferred Nixon over McGovern in the 1972 election.”

Rakfeldt vouches for the legitimacy of the study although it’s original intent was not to demonstrate those results. He claims that these results weren’t part of the original project.

Lohse describes himself as a “Reagan revolution fanatic.” However Bush, he says, “is just beyond the pale.”

@Ritmo:This has nothing to do with the thread. It's not even new. The meme that conservatives are mentally ill has already been done.

You don't understand do you? You guys are in charge. Obama can order the Coast Guard to stop enforcing the 65 foot limit to keep the press away from the oil cleanup areas in the Gulf, and allow reporters into the swamps to see the damage for themselves. The Dems could have had a plan to address the S.C. decisions about handguns, but chose to delay or obfuscate it.

Apparently, Chicago in particular is scared that if citizens in their brownstones and apartments are allowed to purchase a revolver, that suddenly they'll form armed gangs and shoot the town up. It would disturb the peaceful serenity of the windy city.

It's not a meme. It's a study. Not funded by "the Gov't TM", either. And where's there any evidence of Obama being a lunatic?

There's ample evidence of Nixon being a paranoid who used the powers of the state (i.e. as a "statist") such as the FBI, to spy on citizens, as Bush wanted to do.

Who says I "prefer" statism? I prefer rational solutions to problems and do not harbor irrational fears of the people or their own representatives.

Comfort with an authoritarian does not require that you feel he need more of a state apparatus to convey his power over your personality. But if it does, I think Nixon and Bush's egregious misuse of the departments in question illustrate perfectly how just such a state apparatus can be accomplished to fit the ends you pretend to decry.

Seems to me that people who are comfortable with their neighbors being armed are the opposite of people comfortable with authoritarian rule.

People who want the government to have a monopoly on force are objectively in favor of authoritarianism. They don't trust the people they know, their neighbors and friends, with deadly force. They do trust a central authority with force though.

People who want the government to have a monopoly on force are objectively in favor of authoritarianism.

A monopoly on the use of force is probably one of the simplest ways to define a government, actually. Do you object to restricting the right of the people to imprison their fellow citizens on their own, without the involvement of the government?

Perhaps that's the wrong question to ask in a waning era of allowing private contractors to run the state for you, though.

That said, I don't have a problem with people having some kind of suasion or force-based check over the state. And I wish I could see how hand guns and assault rifles are any match for nuclear weapons and tanks.

Maybe you could lend me some of the lenses that could show me the force equalization in that, dbp.

Citizens ought to be clued in by now that the Windy City gummint wants them to be easy prey for criminals, to be robbed, raped, or killed.

Why else would they so relentlessly pursue a plan that has repeatedly failed, and horrifyingly so?

The Windy City is my home town.

The influence of the Mafia in city government continues.

The rise of Obama signals the merger of the Mafia, city government, and black shakedown gangs (Jesse Jackson and friend).

Yes, these folks would prefer that ordinary citizens are not armed.

The diversity scam plays right into the gangster's hands. Install a black man at the top of the food chain, and you don't have to submit the lowest bid to win government contracts. The opportunities for graft and kickbacks are limitless.

Back then, I remember scuttlebutt about how the homicide rate reflected gangs simply killing each other off.

Gang-related shootings are a huge problem in Chicago. But you know that all these anti-gun laws haven't done anything to stop gang violence in Chicago, DC, Detroit or anywhere else. Gun bans don't do a damn thing for public safety, that much is obvious. And if they don't improve public safety, what is their purpose?

I dunno, Maguro. I can take your word for it that the bans didn't do anything for "public" safety if you can tell me why the police force should have to rely on gang members killing each other off, rather than having a shot at serving them justice of any sort on their own.

I guess that sort of a dialectical challenge is a pretty good standstill. But I still don't see a reason for a why a local government shouldn't have the authority to a strict enforcement regime of time, manner, permitting, and amount of ownership. Doomsday scenarios seem to really invigorate conservative fascinations but I really don't see a Red Dawn scenario where just the right amount of small weapons stockpiling is what kept an internal or external enemy from obliterating them utterly with the sort of superior firepower that you only think comes in handy on foreign soil.

Doomsday scenarios seem to really invigorate conservative fascinations but I really don't see a Red Dawn scenario where just the right amount of small weapons stockpiling is what kept an internal or external enemy from obliterating them utterly with the sort of superior firepower that you only think comes in handy on foreign soil.

You're such a prolific and deliberate liar, Ritmo.

Now, stop lying for a moment.

The plaintiff in the gun case before the Supreme Court was a black man who wanted to own a gun to protect himself from thugs in his own neighborhood.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a freeState, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not beinfringed But since only crazy people would want to keep & bear Arms and insane people can clearly be denied lethal force--In practice only government authorities shall bear Arms.

@Ritmo:This case wasn't a Red Dawn scenario. We're not talking Mad Max like you alluded to earlier. In those scenarios, government isn't around anymore anyway, so it's anything goes.

We're talking about a case of self-defense in the home. Not armed vigilantes running around. As to the armed gangs killing each other off: You've relegated the citizens caught in the crossfire, or who happen to live in the wrong neighborhoods, to no recourse. You've said the local government can restrict firearms to the point of zero, and that they can simply shrug when gunfire erupts in the neighborhood. After all, they've got a law against guns, what else can they do? It's just punks killing other punks, right? Too bad if they rob and kill bystanders, but the police can't be everywhere, you know?

You'd think in Chicago where the dead can vote, that the dead would know better.

Anyway, it was Democratic state legislators that brought up getting the National Guard involved. That's a scenario from a movie.

You invented the "conservatives want guns to fight the Russkies" bit. That was just a lie.

And one that you came up with. It was a good try.

But it wasn't what I said. dbp and Pogo think that Americans will first elect "Russky"-style domestic government before the fight is picked. By that government.

It's a semantic thing, you see. Your brain is too gripped by fury to understand. I'll let the sparks running rampant through your amygdala fizzle out on their own, though. Otherwise I'd let myself be contaminated by the paranoia that props up your straw men, and I don't want that to happen.

Now go curse the blacks and whoever else took your job and your country from you, or whatever.

I can take your word for it that the bans didn't do anything for "public" safety if you can tell me why the police force should have to rely on gang members killing each other off, rather than having a shot at serving them justice of any sort on their own.

The point, Ritmo, is that the gangs don't care about gun laws. They already have plenty of guns and can always get more. Fact of the matter is that the gun law the Supreme Court struck down did nothing to prevent gangs from getting weapons or keep law-abiding Chicagoans safe from gang violence.

It must be comforting having such certainty (that thing which is the opposite of ambiguity)about people you have never met.

Anything I've said about ST is mere paraphrasing of what he says every time he gets his hands on a keyboard and a screen that mentions (or doesn't mention) blacks. Ask anyone. He's one step away from Cedarford.

Anything I've said about ST is mere paraphrasing of what he says every time he gets his hands on a keyboard and a screen that mentions (or doesn't mention) blacks. Ask anyone. He's one step away from Cedarford.

You are a contemptible piece of low life shit, Ritmo.

As always.

I've had enough of your shit. You are really scum.

I've got better things to do than waste my time on a low life piece of shit.

If I was visiting someplace where insane people are kept, like Bedlam back in the day. Would it be rational of me to debate one of the inmates?

I would not myself have to be crazy to do this, but if I thought it useful, that would be dumb. If I thought it entertaining, that would make me sick in some sense. The only explanation that makes sense and doesn't result in me being a creep, is if I don't really think the inmates are crazy.

The talking point that gun rights will cause our society to devolve into "Mad Max" has been utterly debunked by the reality of "shall issue" now in more than two-thirds of all states of the US with nothing of the sort happening. That kind of repeated talking point is itself irrational.

The reality is that we've seen the need for "armed vigilantes" at times in the US. In the 19th Century, San Francisco city government was in the control of a local gang, and was doing nothing regarding rampant crime. It took the citizens organizing themselves into what people would excitingly call "vigilantes" to restore order and civil government to San Francisco.

As for the "Red Dawn" scenario sneeringly referred to above, in fact armed citizens have aided military and law enforcement many times in our history as well, one example being the raid on Columbus New Mexico by Pancho Villa where the Villa guerrillas were driven off by troops aided by armed citizens.

But that's ok, silly sneering like that only reinforces the image of irrationality.

There's ample evidence of Nixon being a paranoid who used the powers of the state (i.e. as a "statist") such as the FBI, to spy on citizens, as Bush wanted to do.

I think that this is a basic misunderstanding about what was going on during these respective Administrations. There were no attempts during the Bush (43) Administration to intercept purely domestic communications w/o a warrant, for the simple reason that it was clearly prohibited by both statute (Wiretap laws) and Constitution (4th Amdt). And there was little issue about purely foreign communications.

What was at issue were international communications with known or highly suspected terrorists. This means that one end of the communications was here and the other in a foreign country. The issue was the extent that FISA controlled and required a warrant to be acquired before surveillance was begun, and part of the problem there was that in these cases, the NSA didn't know that the call would be made until it actually was made.

Compounding the issue was that FISA warrants require a substantial amount of paper work, on the order of a man week or so of attorney time per foreign telephone number being intercepted, and the numbers were often only good for a day or two.

And, somehow, those on the left have turned this into an attempt by the Bush (43) Administration to tap telephone lines of Americans on a regular basis.

In short, a complete and utter rewriting of reality.

And yet Jimmy Carter was the first to engage in the "warrantless wiretapping" people on the left were so exercised about before the election. Hey, whatever happened with that?

To be fair to Carter, FISA was enacted after Nixon, and, indeed, previous Administrations had wiretapped international and foreign communications back as far as they have existed, most notably during war (esp. FDR during WWII).

Nevertheless, Nixon people did illegally tap domestic communications. The Bush Administration never did, nor did it ever attempt to.

The talking point that gun rights will cause our society to devolve into "Mad Max" has been utterly debunked by the reality of "shall issue" now in more than two-thirds of all states of the US with nothing of the sort happening. That kind of repeated talking point is itself irrational.

It's irrational to declare that U.S. society has less violent crime than other Western countries and it's irrational to claim that permissive gun laws are not a response to a society that is already violent enough to either make political arguments for them or to have ideological reasons for them.

Effect: Meet Cause. Cause: Meet Effect. I see the two of you haven't been introduced before.

The reality is that we've seen the need for "armed vigilantes" at times in the US. In the 19th Century, San Francisco city government was in the control of a local gang, and was doing nothing regarding rampant crime. It took the citizens organizing themselves into what people would excitingly call "vigilantes" to restore order and civil government to San Francisco.

As for the "Red Dawn" scenario sneeringly referred to above, in fact armed citizens have aided military and law enforcement many times in our history as well, one example being the raid on Columbus New Mexico by Pancho Villa where the Villa guerrillas were driven off by troops aided by armed citizens.

But that's ok, silly sneering like that only reinforces the image of irrationality.

I think that believing selective cases can be used to make a broader argument is more irrational, but what do I know? I'm just a sneerer!

Methinks it not too sneering to point out that someone needs to look up the definition of the word "irrational".

No, not really. I've relegated them to reliance on the same police force any of the other citizens, that some might see as their "betters", would be privileged enough to rely on.

OTOH, you're relegating them to fend for themselves in ways that the richer Chicagoans would never have to do.

Well, you accuse me of lying, now you have lied. Where did I say that citizens of Chicago can't rely on their police force? I never said anywhere that they should rely only on their own weapons for protection.

By your logic, all Chicagoans are equal right now, and have equal access to the police force for protection. If this is so, why did two Democratic state legislators call for the National Guard to be deployed in Chicago to address the rampant crime? According to the linked story, they wanted to position the guard at the streets most affected by crime. I doubt that included Hyde Park.

I'll back off the claim that you said the city could regulate guns to "zero." I strive in this forum to avoid ad hominem attacks, name-calling, and not accuse the more liberal persuasion of arguing from intellectual dishonesty. That goes for you, garage, AlphaLib, whoever. If I overstep or misstate your position, I'll own up to it.

I'm not a "gun nut," and I appreciate the difference in scale of laws in a rural, or suburban setting vs. a densely populated city. That said, my observation is that there's been no serious attempt to reconcile the anti-gun sentiment of the Chicago city council (or in D.C. either) with these S.C. rulings. Instead, they simply throw in more barriers to legally owning a gun.

The rest of your comment seems to descend into political dribble, so I'll just let it go at that.

Good evening Ritmo...Have you ever heard a wise teacher point out to you that not everyone who declares in public that he is against something is really against it. He may only want to win your trust so that he can learn more about you to use it against you later. That is my paranoid view point,and yet it contains valuable wisdom. Testing new people over a sustained period is the only information about them that we can trust. I am now very worried about the tests that Obama has been through the last 17 months. He has consistantly acted boldly to attempt destruction of one American strength after another for one made up reason after another. Do you still trust him?

Israel and Switzerland have almost universal private ownership of guns and very low murder rates. Japan has almost no private gun ownership and very low murder rates. It seems to me that the level of gun ownership has no bearing on murder rate.

Here in the USA, places which have liberalized the ownership of guns have seen falling crime rates. This suggests?

Robin's nah-nah'ing of me doesn't make her own attempted arguments any less confused.

The only way to compare gun violence before and after a change took place in levels of ownership is to look at two time points surrounding such a change. Robin offers none and only offers what citizens took to doing in the Old West, and once after being instructed to by the police - but not in an authoritarian way, mind you. Just upon such instruction. By the authorities.

Since the U.S. has generally had pretty permissive, longstanding laws, I'm not surprised that she refrains from offering "before and after" examples. She probably can't find them.

So it's probably not surprising that she also refuses to compare levels of gun ownership and violent crime between societies, either - which would be a good proxy study.

And even if threat of vigilantism was a good disincentive, it's still a violent one, and one reflecting a propensity to seeing more violence in more places than in areas that don't encourage vigilantism. Try explaining that in a way that doesn't condone violence.

I thought you guys were in favor of specialization of labor, anyway?

But whatever. I'm getting in the way of someone's romance with the Wild West (eg. 19th century San Francisco, Pancho Villa, etc.). Heaven forbid that I use modern society as the relevant reference point. That might be seen as sneering, and hence, "irrational".

Israel and Switzerland have almost universal private ownership of guns and very low murder rates.

Both much more homogeneous societies than ours, both with universal conscription, one under constant external if not existential threat, and the other with a history of strict neutrality that required constant vigilance.

But whatever. The threats are not criminal, i.e. from within, in a society with a greater sense of solidarity and trust in itself. Perhaps if the U.S. was a country based in a people rather than on a creed, and with less competition, hostility and friction between the groups that live here, then you could have that. But you don't. Deal.

So, while dbp reveals that he likes arguments, it's clear that he doesn't care as much for facts as one might have hoped.

Japan has almost no private gun ownership and very low murder rates. It seems to me that the level of gun ownership has no bearing on murder rate.

Whose argument are you making here?

Here in the USA, places which have liberalized the ownership of guns have seen falling crime rates. This suggests?

I dunno. A still more violent society that merely internalizes its threats rather than allowing the police to do their job?

I'll trust your assertions more when I see less of the fuzzy thinking that prompted your Israel-Switzerland comparison to the U.S.

Japan has almost no private gun ownership and very low murder rates. It seems to me that the level of gun ownership has no bearing on murder rate.

The Japanese murder rate isn't as low as they pretend it is. When someone gets thrown off a building or pushed in front of a train the cops rule it a suicide before the body is cold, provided the victim is Yakuza or a non-white foreigner. Nobody cares. The papers won't even print the story.

Japan have almost no street crime-type murder, but the gangsters have guns and they do kill each other. As long as they keep it in the family, again, nobody cares. Jake Adelstein's Tokyo Vice is a good read on the subject.

"Japan has almost no private gun ownership and very low murder rates. It seems to me that the level of gun ownership has no bearing on murder rate.

Whose argument are you making here?"

Mine:

"Israel and Switzerland have almost universal private ownership of guns and very low murder rates. Japan has almost no private gun ownership and very low murder rates. It seems to me that the level of gun ownership has no bearing on murder rate."

Readers can see my post above yours, so splitting the argument up and acting like each part is unrelated just makes you look both obtuse and dishonest. This is why I (usually) just skip over your blather.

Then there's this tidbit: "Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%."

Repeating the assertion that "the level of gun ownership has no bearing on murder rate", does not make it so. Good thing you preface it with "it seems to me..."

If you take two different examples, one of which I easily picked apart because of how it is not comparable to U.S. society, that doesn't mean I can't agree with or ignore, for similar reasons, your second example - even if you used it to discredit the conclusions of the first.

You are apparently confused by differing examples and make no conclusion based on the fact that they seem to disagree with each other. I, OTOH, offered a credible explanation for the first example.

You can call my comment "blather", but at least I am capable of drawing inferences that you merely ignore in order to bolster a simpler (and more convenient, if less credible) belief.

Then there's this tidbit: "Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%."

I think you must hate women.

And I think you must believe that the vagina should come with a gun attached to it and a sign reading: "Caution: Police! Stay away! Crimes and vigilante acts in progress"

But I don't think most women feel a need to be their own police force and are probably better at using pepper spray than you are at making a less offensive argument.

Any woman who depends on pepper spray for self defense is crazy. About half the potential attackers out there can just shrug it off, and if you think rapists are violent under normal circumstances, try pepper spraying them first.

"Israel and Switzerland have almost universal private ownership of guns and very low murder rates."

The thing no one mentions in these public debates is in lumping all Americans together as "more violent" that diversity drives the violence more than media and politicians DARE discuss.White Americans approximate murder and armed robbery rates of white nations in Europe.Asian Americans have an even lower rate of gun violence than whites. The crazy Korean at VT was a true abherration.Latins here have a lower gun violence rate than Mexico's or PR;s or Santo Domingos - but still much higher than whites.The stats are driven by blacks - who have a murder rate with guns, armed assault rate using guns, and armed robbery rates 11-14 times that of whites.

PC demands we ignore this in any gun debate.Also that PC demands we do not discuss the logic of how resolving the problem of black violence boils down to demanding law abiding citizens of all races not own guns. While black thugs and their less violent hispanic thug counterparts maintain ready access to guns in any city.

"During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes."

There's not much objective evidence that gun control laws do much more than make progressives feel better about themselves. If we're supposed to abridge Constitutional rights on the basis of personal conviction and faith, then somebody needs to apologize to the oft maligned "Christianists" for bitching about their attempts to impose their beliefs on others via law.

First, there is a profound difference between vigilance committees and self-defense. If you are going to conflate the two, then you are simply a stupid person and there is not much more to say.

You believe (as though your personal biases trump objective fact) that women don't "feel a need to be their own police force and are probably better at using pepper spray." Feel. Probably. Perhaps.

Maybe you should do research? Women who are defending themselves are not substituting themselves for a police force. Would a man attempt to rape a woman if there were officers of the law anywhere close at hand?

and by the way, what is unreasonable about the chicago ordinance other than the slaves to the absoluteness of the 2nd amendment don't like it?

There are a couple of inherent problems with the Chicago ordinance. The first one is the definition by which the chain of ownership is placed. I can own a gun, but I can't own a store that sells them by which logic dictates that I own a whole lot of guns until I sell them, but this law will prohibit the sales of within Chicago proper, but not outside of it. The second thing is, is that it defines the limits of what constitutes what the boundaries of my property rights are as a further definition of what the boundaries of my property are. If I can't stand anywhere on my property while carrying my firearm that is a big problem in many ways. If I can't even go into my garage with my firearm, even if the garage is attached to my home and is on my own property, then that is a big problem.

But of course, an incompetent, ignorant leftard like you couldn't possibly understand that. Just out of curiosity, have you ever held or fired a gun?

I am not a lawyer, but have a fairly good command of my native language, English. Shall is an absolute command, when followed by not it is an absolute prohibition. Infringed is an interesting word, since the founding fathers could not conceive of prohibition of this RIGHT, but is equally as absolute as shall not. There is no circumstance where any attempt to legislate any form of gun control is not infringement.

Sadly, we as a republic's citizenry sit back and allow elected officials to erode our freedoms, subvert our constitution, and bring us ever closer to an Orwellian state. Our noble experiment is failing.

SCOTUS justices are proxy elected officials since they are appointed and approved by them. Supreme Court precedent does not really change the wrongness of the failure to abide by a clear and concise 2nd amendment.

Now go curse the blacks and whoever else took your job and your country from you, or whatever.

And thus ends the reign of idiocy that Sctickmo has enveloped all of us in. Sctickmo, you've made us all dumber by simply reading this tract of offal. You've finally succeeded in embarrassing yourself. Why do you continue to bother anymore? Not only are you a rampant liar, which others on here are finally seeing, but you've also dragged your pathetic ideology into such a lower strata of uselessness as to render anything you say from here on in as a discredited steaming pile of your own shit.

Daley is going to try to wear out the good guys with legal expenses. (when this ordinance gets tossed, draft a new one, etc.) But, considering that the state of Illinois has gone broke, how can Chicago afford to keep up its side of the legal battle? Would the antigun Joyce Foundation fund their defense?

So what is the special difference between the First and Second Amendments that would allow the government to restrict speech based on obscenity or time, place, and manner, but not allow the government to require waiting periods/background checks for gun ownership or restrict where you can carry your guns?

No prior restraint on speech allowed, analogous to no waiting periods. Time, place, manner restrictions refer to public fora -- if the government doesn't let me carry in the courthouse or the post office that's fine with me. If they don't let me carry in my backyard, that's the same as preventing me from speaking in my backyard.

You can call my comment "blather", but at least I am capable of drawing inferences that you merely ignore in order to bolster a simpler (and more convenient, if less credible) belief.

Even with your blather, you are incapable of even doing the calculus of gun crime vs. gun control. Why do you even bother to infer anything, when you can't even get the basics right? Fortunately for you, blogger doesn't have an ignore button.

But just out of curiosity, what the fuck are you fighting for here? If you are a gun controller, then why do you bother arguing against those that don't want to be curtailed in having their 2nd amendment rights squelched by the fed, states, and cities? If you don't like guns, fine. If you don't want to own one, then fine. So what are you arguing about again?

wv = coldsmeg = That cheery aftertaste that Sctickmo leaves whenever he types something on Althouse for all of us to see.

the banning of gun shops in the city as stated by other posters here, are stupid. But the fact that a restriction is stupid does not make it unconstitutional.

So, does that mean banning abortion clinics within the City of Chicago would be constitutional? Assume abortion clinics would spring up just outside city limits to serve those disgusting baby-killing sluts -- why tolerate it in Chicago?

After spending almost thirty years on the Chicago Police Department, I can state the gun ban had been an abject failure. Law abiding citizens who own guns are rarely a problem.

Criminals do not care about laws. They arm themselves with illegally purchased or stolen firearms. This has always been the case.

I find it amazing and silly that law abiding citizens must be punished because of the small minority of criminals. I find it appalling that citizens cannot be allowed to defend themselves against these scourges and dregs of sub-humanity.

Guns are inanimate objects. They have no life of their own, they have no intelligence, they have nothing. The are like bricks, bottles, knives, rocks, and every other kind of inanimate object. It is humans who are the problem.

People kill, not inanimate objects. People are killed by all of the above mentioned items. One year, a murder weapon was a guitar. I did not hear of a groundswell for the banning of guitars.

Gun bans are useless. Guns, like knives, bricks, rocks, bats, guitars, and other inanimate objects do not kill people. People kill people.

But I still don't see a reason for a why a local government shouldn't have the authority to a strict enforcement regime of time, manner, permitting, and amount of ownership.

Do you see a reason why a local government should have the authority to license you before you can speak? Should they have the authority to regulate the amount of speech you could utter in a given day, week, month?

Stop citing to that study until you sharpen your google-fu. Orac took a dump on that study while ribbing his liberal friends for accepting Lohse's nonsense at face value. See here http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/11/psychotics_prefer_bush.php

It would only be more painful for Lohse if that study ever became public.

Also -- presumably, this case won't make it past the District where it will be ruled on in line with this new ruling. If it does go up for review, expect a Posner or Easterbrook smack down of the City.

I'm sure Meth-Head-erast would love to ban my speech - and that of the majority of his country. So you're barking up the wrong tree.

I just want to be like him, because I find everything he says to be so mature, well-reasoned, intelligent, and, you know, humble. He's a good spokesperson for the non-violent gun-rights advocacy crowd. A model representative for his country and the city he hates with all his testicle juice.

Violent republic for violent people. Long may it live. Until it destroys itself.

Anyway, I'd love to get into a debate about legal inanities with someone whose claim to fame is that he's no longer in law school, but I won't. I'll just keep any ideas and facts I have to myself from now on because all they do is rile up a crowd that is just too sensible and noble to ever question.

I am now convinced that those shooting off their wads here are not inclined toward violent thoughts and violent rhetoric. But they sure seem to feel easily threatened. Much like porcupines, they must have soft, sensitive souls that they're protecting.

Never attempt to reason with a crazed animal, my father told me once. (Or was it to never poke fun at a "dumb" animal)? If nothing else, it's cruel. Wise words, they were.

Violent republic for violent people. Long may it live. Until it destroys itself.

The Supreme Law of the Land is clearly not on your side. Case law about that Law is not on your side. The facts comparing crime in gun-control places to places where legal guns are abundant -- those are against you. The citizens of the country (especially single-issue voters) are against you.

Why is it nevertheless so important to the orthodox left that law-abiding citizens be prevented from defending themselves with guns?

The Machos-FLS love is just too adorable. But I wasn't aware that guns were a method of communication and that use of them, in terms of frequency, as necessary to holding a republic accountable as is speech. Oh well. I guess some of us think the power of ideas greater and more important than the power of bullets. And some don't. The violent ones?

I don't own a gun, have never owned a gun, and very likely will never own a gun.

I am merely an ardent supporter of the government being limited by the obvious limits the federal Constitution, various state constitutions, and other ordinances place on government. This is because, unlike you, Ritmo, I am not a fascist who wishes to disregard the law in favor of some hopeful vision (like the time you recently said we should ditch the Commerce Clause because somebody once died from lack of medical care, or insurance, or something just as stupid as that).

The Raich case did not dispute the physician's testimony re: the life-threatening nature of the patient's condition and the power to stave off death with the medication he prescribed. This was acknowledged by the court. But they nevertheless ruled that they had the power to prevent that from mattering more than a principle of regulation.

That doesn't bother you, I suppose. Well, everyone's got to have their principles. And if a defense of the All-Powerful One-Law (as decided by an a huge majority of 1 or 2) against the fascist arguments in favor of saving lives is required by such principles, So Let It Be Written. So Let It Be Done. Just don't expect me to take your gun-safety statistics (or any other of that sort) as offered in good faith. Lives of those who suffer are not your concern.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't have to be in order to have morals. Should I be sorry that this fact offends you? Strangely, I'm not.

And then our resident guy who is always too stoned to make any sense reverts back to his silly failure to contemplate the whole, exact point that a person who is conservative isn't always going to agree with Antonin Scalia (who merely concurred in Raich or, for that matter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, the three most leftist members of the Supreme Court, one of whom -- the most leftist, wrote the opinion itself which was based on the Commerce Clause.

When you quote the words "infringement" in relation to the 1st amendment and rule the same way regarding local obscenity laws as you do on Chicago or any other city's restrictions, then I'll take you seriously.

How opportune that I just brought up obscenity (to a guy who probably supports such restrictions) who nonetheless just thought "douchebag" a meaningful response.

I don't care about the political breakdown of Raich. I care about whether you think it's a problem that saving lives mattered less to a court than did a principle of regulation.

You don't agree with Scalia? Then stop thinking for a moment that I give a fig about what someone on the court has to say based on political affiliation/purported ideology. You seem to not understand when politics is relevant and when it isn't.

Why is it so important to the orthodox right that defense with one's own gun be conflated with stockpiling guns?

Guns are made to fit various purposes. There are pistols in rifle calibers and rifles (aka carbines) in pistol calibers. You can fire a rifled slug from a shotgun (and you must, if you're hunting deer in Illinois or Iowa, where a rifle bullet might go through a half-dozen farms).

Plus they are often beautiful, or at least aesthetically pleasing, objects in themselves. I have a friend who collects coffee grinders -- surely one coffee grinder is enough for anyone; who would need a coffee grinding arsenal?

Those of us who enjoy exercising our unenumerated rights must support the specific, enumerated right of gun ownership. If a specifically enumerated right can be legislated out of existence, what chance do privacy-related rights have?

You know, FLS, I once read a review and common critique of American Psycho that extolled a purported "aesthetic of violence" at work in the film, on account of the purity with which it was addressed. So, I suppose I see what you mean.

But I wonder why you are so concerned with the abstract, here. Surely there are differences in the meaning and use between implements intended to kill and maim and implements used to grind coffee beans.

I won't even mention vocal cords. The distinction might be great enough to cause one to become upset.

But anyways, you've managed to turn this into an interesting exercise in art appreciation. I suppose I should be grateful.

Although I'm not sure that the true believers place as much emphasis on that approach.

I'm pleasantly distracted. For now. But then, you're not quite so disagreeable and crude as some, are you?

I assume they have the power to prevent a doctor from treating a patient in a way that he determines, and that they agree, will save her life.

Of course, you must have some complicated reason for finding an otherwise clear principle being muddled in that. I guess it has to do with courts not having power. Yes. That's it. Their lack of power is what forces them to back the government in this instance, over the rights of Ms Raich.

Quit being a lawyer and try being a decent person for a change. I know you're capable of trying. If nothing else, think of those words: life, liberty... aww hell. Whatever. Call me an ignorant obfuscator instead.

Tell it to Ms. Raich, asshole. Break it down in terms you would explain to her. If you had the balls.

Also: Tell her I'm just a stoner and that I don't care. Tell that to Dead Julius, too - (hopefully you're not aware of what he told Meade, though).

Incidentally, while I don't agree with Raich, I note that purchasing marijuana in this country is not exceedingly difficult and that people who buy it face very little in the way of criminal punishment. For you to get on your stoner high horse and say that the Supreme Court caused someone to die in this case is only evidence of poor thinking and poor argumentation skills.

But make it snappy, if you wouldn't mind. I'm getting sleepy and you have a court, allegedly emasculated of the power to protect certain individual interests or rights - one of them being one's life, to defend. On account of said court's purported impotence.

No prior restraint on speech allowed, analogous to no waiting periods. Time, place, manner restrictions refer to public fora -- if the government doesn't let me carry in the courthouse or the post office that's fine with me. If they don't let me carry in my backyard, that's the same as preventing me from speaking in my backyard.

I think too facile and simplistic. Prior speech restraint is likely to end up as more egregious than a waiting period, and limiting the location of speech is not the same as limiting where you can bear a weapon.

My thoughts are that the analogies are not accurate because the route towards infringing a right differs between speech and bearing arms. What is important for each differs.

The problem with waiting periods is that often when you need a weapon, you need it now, and not a week, month, etc. from now (that was surely my case a couple of decades ago when I bought a short barreled 12 gauge). They are sold as a "cooling off" period, but the reality is often the reverse, operating to deprive someone of a weapon for defense at precisely the time when most needed.

There are real reasons to limit the place one can bear arms. Court houses are one, as evidenced by the myriad times through our history where people have resorted to violence in an attempt to thwart justice. Some would think that airports are the same (I would not, but would rather control the types of ammunition that could be carried aboard a plane). Schools, not so much, rather laws limiting guns there turn them into free-fire zones. Carrying in a post office? Ridiculous to limit that.

On the other hand, limiting speech in a court house is easy to justify on the basis of providing justice. And ditto for schools. But in the post office or airport? Doubtful.

In the case of gun laws, the question is whether there is a real, verifiable, safety issue. With speech, the question is more likely whether there is a real threat to the operation of some government function.

As for your back yard, while you will likely to be able to carry your gun there, it is unlikely that you could discharge it legally, absent some real or perceived threat, in most back yards across the country. That is, I would suggest, because bullets discharged within your back yard are likely to travel outside such in most back yards (I have lived where it was legal and there was little risk). At the same time, yelling over the fence is more likely not a crime.

On the other hand, watching kiddie porn in your house is pretty much guaranteed to be more egregious than merely possessing a gun there.

I'm sorry your petitioner was too stupid to figure out how to purchase a product that is abundantly available across America, dude.

Availability and legality are and should be two separate things, alleged stupidity of said petitioner notwithstanding. That said, some people may have a problem being as sneaky as you would advise them to be when the DEA is around when they are partially paralyzed. But again, why should you care?

Also, this has nothing to do with guns (which, by the way, you and I have a constitutionally-protected right to purchase, own, and use).

But you brought it up here.

And I'm supposed to trust that a court that would do what it did to a dying patient knows how to make the best defense of the liberties of people who obsess about killing and maiming as their most cherished right?

An ass clown is someone who poses as super-smart and tells people to read mathematicians he has never himself read, but who comically uses the word dribble when he means drivel, thereby exposing himself as a provincial, know-nothing charlatan who cannot possibly be well-read. That's an ass clown. Got it, Meadowlark?

I'm sure Meth-Head-erast would love to ban my speech - and that of the majority of his country. So you're barking up the wrong tree.

I would not under any circumstances ban you or anyone's speech even if I venomously hate the speech being uttered. What I will do, however, is see your ideas through speech defeated and sunk into the abject shit-bin of history. Your pathetic characterization of what you think I would do about your speech only speaks volumes for the type of demented thinking that permeates your rancid mind. You see the conservative boogey man everywhere you go now and in your paranoid haze of early onset dementia, you think everyone else wants to ban what you say too? Fuck, talk about being a perpetual victim. God, you are one whiny cunt.

I just want to be like him, because I find everything he says to be so mature, well-reasoned, intelligent, and, you know, humble. He's a good spokesperson for the non-violent gun-rights advocacy crowd. A model representative for his country and the city he hates with all his testicle juice.

Right, so all of my testicle juice is filled with hate. I am now the proud owner of hate semen. No, hate juice. No, hate jizz? I don't know, but someone will come up with something more clever, but your childish mockery is what is on display here. Where is your reasoned thought? Is this is it?

Violent republic for violent people. Long may it live. Until it destroys itself.

It's a violent world, but you must live in non-violent, happy rainbow land with unicorns, and wood nymphs, and a lot of music by Yes, during their Tom Cruise Legend days playing in the background wherever you go. Moron, this country was founded via a violent uprising, propagated by a violent monarchy against it's own colony and in it's defense required the use of violence to break free of the shackles of tyranny through it's use. The world is a violent place, it doesn't give two rat fucks about you or anyone else, but you go right on ahead advocating the non-violent world you want to live in. Let me know how it works out for you at some later time, mkay?

Anyway, I'd love to get into a debate about legal inanities with someone whose claim to fame is that he's no longer in law school, but I won't.

I'll just keep any ideas and facts I have to myself from now on because all they do is rile up a crowd that is just too sensible and noble to ever question.

This is clearly you being crushed under the weight of your lies, the fictions you put forth as facts and when presented with counterpoints that destroy them utterly, you soliloquy this bit of back-peddling drivel. Every time I or anyone else hands you, your ass in the forms of the simpleton arguments you present, you slither away with, "Oh, I know I'm superior and what I say is just as much, but, but, but, I'm taking my ball home and I'm leaving because I can't counter anything you've said. So nya nya on you, poopy face people."

I am now convinced that those shooting off their wads here are not inclined toward violent thoughts and violent rhetoric. But they sure seem to feel easily threatened. Much like porcupines, they must have soft, sensitive souls that they're protecting.

Actually, that inclination you feel is your vagina getting a little sour and you not having a massengill on hand to alleviate the sting.

Never attempt to reason with a crazed animal, my father told me once. (Or was it to never poke fun at a "dumb" animal)? If nothing else, it's cruel. Wise words, they were.

Zoo visiting hours are now over.

Your father is a dumber dumbfuck than you are. In your fantasy world of sunflowers and quiche, you couldn't defend yourself against a crazed animal. In my real world, you would shoot it. In this world, the winner is not you. But hey, let us know when your next act is going to ramp up. I'll buy tickets for a front row seat to watch the fail.